Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat weblog has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, info-tech and privacy/confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. The team is David Brophy, Merpel, Jeremy Phillips, Eleonora Rosati, Nicola Searle, Darren Smyth, Annsley Merelle Ward and Neil J. Wilkof. You're welcome to read, post comments and participate in our community. You can email the Kats here

For the half-year to 31 December 2015, the IPKat's regular team is supplemented by contributions from guest bloggers Jani Ihalainen, Nikos Prentoulis and Mark Schweizer.

Birgit Clark is on Sabbatical till the end of the year

Regular round-ups of the previous week's blogposts are kindly compiled by Alberto Bellan.

Tuesday, 11 December 2012

The IPKat reproduces, below, the media release from the European Parliament on this afternoon's vote on the new EU unitary patent package.

Parliament approves EU unitary patent rules

PLENARY SESSIONCompetition − 11-12-2012 - 13:00

EU inventors will soon be able to get a unitary patent at last. After over 30 years of talks, a new regime will cut the cost of an EU patent by up to 80%, making it more competitive vis-à-vis the US and Japan[This is not true: EU patents do not compete with patents in other countries any more than European rules on urban traffic control compete with US, Japanese or Chinese rules]. MEPs cut costs for small firms and tailored the regime to their needs [even if it means small companies having to litigate a single contested patent through the courts of three different countries: see Lord Justice Kitchin's critique here] , in a compromise deal with the Council endorsed by Parliament on Tuesday,

"Intellectual property must not stop at borders. The path towards the introduction of the EU patent was long and troubled, but ultimately it has been worth the effort", said Bernhard Rapkay (S&D, DE), the lead MEP on the regulation setting up a unitary patent protection system [and a career politician who has shown neither sensitivity nor understanding towards the patent system or its many users], "Today's vote is good news for EU economy and especially for European small and medium enterprises (SMEs)", he added.

The current European patent regime "is effectively a tax on innovation" said Raffaele Baldassarre (EPP, IT), who led talks on the regime for translating EU patents. "Specific measures for SMEs to fully reimburse translation costs and ensure extra legal protection in the event of counterfeiting" were introduced on Parliament demand, he added.

Legal Affairs Committee Chair Klaus-Heiner Lehne (EPP, DE), who led on the international agreement setting up a unified patent court, said: "People in China are telling us that we cannot have a single market without a unitary patent" [Is there any other message from China that the European Parliament would like to pass on, while they're about it?]. With the new rules "a lot of obstacles for SMEs will be overcome", he added.

Cheaper and more effective protection

The new patent will be cheaper and more effective than current systems in protecting the inventions of individuals and firms. The new regime will provide automatic unitary patent protection in all 25 participating member states, cutting cuts costs for EU firms and hence boosting their competitiveness. When the new system is up to speed, an EU patent may cost just €4,725, compared to an average of €36,000 needed today, says the European Commission.

How to apply for the new patent?

Any inventor will be able to apply to the European Patent Organisation (EPO, a non-EU body) for an EU unitary patent valid in all 25 EU member states taking part. Patents will be made available in English, French and German. Applications will have to be made in English, German or French. If made in another language, they will have to be accompanied by a translation into one of these three languages.

How Parliament helped to reduce costs

Parliament ensured that translation costs will be fully reimbursed for EU-based small and medium-sized enterprises, non-profit organisations, universities and public research organisations .

It also ensured that renewal fees, which account for a large share of total costs, will be set at a level that takes account of the special needs of small firms, so that they can benefit fully from lower costs.

Entry into force

The international agreement creating a unified patent court will enter into force on 1 January 2014 or after thirteen contracting states ratify it, provided that UK, France and Germany are among them[No prizes are offered for suggestions as to where the next round of lobbying, campaigning, pleading and cajoling will be taking place].The other two acts would apply from 1 January 2014, or from the date when the international agreement enters into force, whichever is the latest. Spain and Italy are currently outside the new regime, but could decide to join in at any time.

The Rapkay report was approved by 484 votes to 164 with 35 abstentions.

The Baldassarre resolution was approved by 481 votes to 152 with 49 abstentions.

The Lehne report was approved by 483 votes to 161, with 38 abstentions.

10 comments:

Mark Richardson
said...

The unitary patent package was predictably a hot topic at last week's IP Summit in Brussels.

Forum shopping and maintenance fee levels were raised as major concerns (see our post here http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/2012/12/11/unitary-patent-unified-patent-court/) as was the lack of transparency in the preparation of the rules of procedure.

The message from the EU Commission and EPO however was it's not perfect but it'll do!

look, fact is, software patents are needed in europe to stop that uppity young generation with their interwhatsits and mobile things. right now, a european teen in their bedroom can write a program and release it under copyright, without even 3 or 4 honest years of pointless and economically catastrophic patent litigation. the unitary patent finally gives free rein to the epo to make a complete balls of the european tech industry.

One question which I have regarding the unitary patent is that of how is contributory infringement going to be handled for cross-border sales. At present, each country has a provision directed to infringement having a national element, see Section 60(2) Patents Act. How is this going to be extended to cover, say, sales from the UK to France where the patent owner is a UK company? I understand that UK law regarding infringement will apply but according to UK law there would be no infringement as the sale is outside of the UK and therefore the invention would not be put into effect in the UK.

Am I correct in assuming that the agreed texts will now need to go before the UK Parliament's European Scrutiny Committee once again? Do we have a feel for how likely it is that the UK will ratify the agreement given the outstanding concerns?

I make reference to the question of Anonymous related to the “cross border” sales from UK to France of means relating to an essential element of the invention protected by an Unitary Patent for putting the invention into effect in France. The case you described it is not a cross border sale for the law regulating the indirect infringement of a Unitary Patent. The Unitary Patents covers the whole territory of the participating States as a single entity, to which the territorial borders of the member States do not apply. The sales from UK to France of essential means of the inventions to put in use this invention in France does amount therefore to an undirect infringement of the Unitary Patent according to Art. 14g UPC Draft Agreement. Art. 14g UPC shall apply - pursuant to Art. 5a UPR - also to European Patents with unitary effects.

Section 60(2) will no longer apply to EP(UK)s. It will be superseded by Art 14f of the Unitary Court Regulation. That makes it clear that the relevant territory is the complete list of countries in which the European Patent has effect.

Articles 5a and 10 of the Unitary Patent Protection regulation are misleading if read in isolation from the Unitary Court Regulation.

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

Just pop your email address into the box and click 'Subscribe':

Gama and Pal: is the wet-wipe packaging confusingly similar?

Yesterday morning the IPKat posted this item on an ongoing passing-off action, Gama Healthcare Ltd v Pal International Ltd. in which Gama objected that Pal's wet-wipe packaging would lead people to think it was theirs.

When that Katpost went live, there were no examples of the parties’ packaging to show readers. The Kats have since received images of both, which they reproduce below, and they ask readers, through the medium of the sidebar poll below, if they think that Pal's packaging might be mistaken for Gama’s one.

Pal's packs are sold under the Medipal brand and Gama's are sold as Clinell products.

Caveat: this poll is conducted purely for the amusement of readers of this weblog. It is not mandated by the trial judge or commissioned by either party; it is not based on any methodology and it is not intended to have any evidential value at all.

Wet-wipe packaging: do you think you could pick up a packet of Medipal, thinking it was Clinell?

The IPKat's sidebar contents

Want to complain?If you feel that you have been unfairly prevented from posting a comment on one of this weblog's features, here's what you can do about it

The IPKat's cousins: some IP-friendly blogs for youThe IPKat lists his 'family' of IP blogs, some of which focus on specific rights, geographical zones, markets or interests

How many page-views?See how many times the pages of the IPKat weblog have been purr-viewed

The Kat that tweetsToo short to blog? Some news and views are still worth airing, thanks to Twitter

Want to receive the IPKat weblog by email?You can get each post, or a digest, sent direct to your favourite mailbox

Not just any old IPKatEvery so often, this feline creeps into the limelight

The IPKat's RSS feeding arrangementsFeedburner and all those other things ...

What you've been sayingHere are the most recent readers' comments on the IPKat's posts

The IPKat's Greatest Hits!Here are the five posts on the IPKat's weblog that have received the most attention from readers over the past 30 days

Has the Kat got your tongue?Some translation facilities for readers whose first language is not English, or who are just plain masochistic

Creative Commons licenceYou too can make use of this blog's contents, if you follow the rules

The IPKat ArchiveAncient posts, going back to June 2003

Want to complain?

If you have posted a comment to one of our blogposts and it hasn't appeared, it may be because it doesn't match our criteria for moderation -- essentially that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should be relevant to the blogpost on which they purport to comment.

If you feel that your comment should have been moderated, please email the IPKat at theipkat@gmail.com and let him know, since it may be that your comment has been misdirected into the Blogger software's Spam file.

In the event that there has been no software malfunction and that your post has been rejected, if you want to appeal against this decision please contact either (i) Dr Danny Friedmann of theIP Dragonweblog (ipdragon@gmail.com) or (ii) Professor Dennis Crouch of the Patently-O weblog (dcrouch@patentlyo.com). Danny or Dennis will review your complaint, preserving the confidentiality of your identity and will let both you and us know whether your complaint is justified.

If your complaint relates to bias or distortion, the IPKat suggests that you contact him initially, bearing in mind that he and Merpel are generally willing to host pieces by guest contributors even when their opinions are at odds with those of this blog's contributors.